Critique over “Estevanico” in Wikipedia. 

Critique over “Estevanico” in Wikipedia.

The wikipedia page for Estevanico is informative as well as well-illustrated, though, some parts of the illustration may seem a little imprecise.

When I first took a glance at the wikipedia page for Estevanico, I was astounded to see there is only little information about the one of the four survivors of the expedition compared to other surviving expeditioners in the wiki page. However, when I dig through the page and other materials concerning about other survivors, I understand why. Estabanico was a slave to a Spanish noble when he conduced the expedition.That means it was actually meaningless for the people at that time to write a descriptive illustration of his life and his experience on the voyage. Therefore, I understand why there is literally nothing about him compared to lengthy description of ÁLVAR. Even the book “a land so strange”, which is considered an important book to give great insights and a large amount of information to the readers about the expedition, only have one sentence for him, “only four surviveD Cabeza de Vaca, two other Spaniards, and Estebanico. No wonder why there is little introduction about him in the wiki-page.

The wikipedia, indeed, gives a relatively informative description about Estebanico. It has four sections regarding the black slave “Estebanico”, from early life to its representation in other media. The wikipedia gives us brief summary of the life of Estabanico, and a lot of information for Estabanico regarding his identity as the American Explorer. It serves to demonstrate his voyage life as the explorer. In my opinion, the wikipedia editors have done a great deal to try to enrich the information for Estabanico. But, in debating whether he was the first black African to set foot on the continent of America, the editor only says that “some books claim him to be the first to land in U.S”, while he gives us the link of the black African who has completed the expedition before Estabanico. The editor does not provide us with which books are saying Estabanico was the first one. In my opinion, this could be inferred as not writing the information in a neutral stance or probably the editor is writing based on facts. The way the editor writing the article about Estabanico on wikipedia probably contradicts the basic idea that all information on Wikipedia should be based on facts and on a neutral standpoint.

Except for some little mistakes, the passage still succeed in giving us a well-demonstrated introduction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *